Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
journals.sagepub.com
Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#2Get them to install Vimium extension and a Tilling Windows Manager.
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#3Unless I'm misunderstanding, this seems to be a totally correlational result. That is, they found that websites with increased accessibility tend to also be more usable. This is easily explained by assuming that developers who care about usability also tend to care about accessibility. It is more difficult to explain in a directly causative way, since many accessibility features, such as aria attributes, are completely invisible to non-disabled users.
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#4Unless I'm misunderstanding, this seems to be a totally correlational result. That is, they found that websites with increased accessibility tend to also be more usable. This is easily explained by assuming that developers who care about usability also tend to care about accessibility. It is more difficult to explain in a directly causative way, since many accessibility features, such as aria attributes, are complete…
There are definitely some core accessibility features that are great for non-disabled users, though, for example having text descriptions for images (it always irritated me that alt-text didn't automatically generate a tooltip, though I sort of understand why)
It's great to be able to mouse over images in Tweetdeck and (if the poster provided it) have the alt-text pop up in a tooltip so I can scan it to see if it's worth the time to open the image, and it's great to have textual descriptions of toolbar icons.
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#5Unless I'm misunderstanding, this seems to be a totally correlational result. That is, they found that websites with increased accessibility tend to also be more usable. This is easily explained by assuming that developers who care about usability also tend to care about accessibility. It is more difficult to explain in a directly causative way, since many accessibility features, such as aria attributes, are complete…
There are definitely some core accessibility features that are great for non-disabled users, though, for example having text descriptions for images (it always irritated me that alt-text didn't automatically generate a tooltip, though I sort of understand why) It's great to be able to mouse over images in Tweetdeck and (if the poster provided it) have the alt-text pop up in a tooltip so I can scan it to see if it's w…
Huh, you're right, it doesn't anymore. It used to though.
I suppose it makes sense now that the web has gone from primarily being a document platform that's sometimes used to create simple applications to primarily being an application platform.
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#6Unless I'm misunderstanding, this seems to be a totally correlational result. That is, they found that websites with increased accessibility tend to also be more usable. This is easily explained by assuming that developers who care about usability also tend to care about accessibility. It is more difficult to explain in a directly causative way, since many accessibility features, such as aria attributes, are complete…
I agree, however they did also run an experiment manipulating the same site (keeping design and layout equal and changing contrast levels). You can see two screenshots on page 616
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#7Get them to install Vimium extension and a Tilling Windows Manager.
This doesn't seem to address the point of the article, which is the (in)validity of the argument "I don't need to/shouldn't implement guidelines that help users with disabilities, because they are ineffective for/hurt users without disabilities." Proposing something else that disabled people can do (I guess that's who 'them' is?) is probably not helpful here, although it could be helpful in a thread looking for tips for disabled users.
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#8Get them to install Vimium extension and a Tilling Windows Manager.
This doesn't seem to address the point of the article, which is the (in)validity of the argument "I don't need to/shouldn't implement guidelines that help users with disabilities, because they are ineffective for/hurt users without disabilities." Proposing something else that disabled people can do (I guess that's who 'them' is?) is probably not helpful here, although it could be helpful in a thread looking for tips…
> Proposing something else that disabled people can do (I guess that's who 'them' is?)
I would guess that 'them' refers to nondisabled users, who are the only group mentioned in the headline.
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#9My understanding was that skipping accessibility features was more about cost than anything else.
Re: Implementing Web accessibility guidelines for nondisabled users (2016)
#10Yes, of course.